'Future proof' lenses? What do you do?

[Archiver]

Since getting my Panasonic S5, and with it, the issues of a new lens mount, I've been thinking about how to make a 'future proof' lens collection. Is this important to anyone else?

Nothing lasts forever. Lens mounts come and go, and later cameras are able to use them with adapters with varying degrees of success. Examples:

Canon FD - cannot be used on Canon EF without a magnifying adapter that may affect lens performance
Minolta SR - same as above

Contax C/Y - can be used on Canon EF mount and all mirrorless systems
Nikon AIS - same as above
Pentax K - same as above

With passive adapters, mirrorless cameras can use any manual focus / manual aperture lens made. It's giving me a lot of thought about building a manual focus lens set like Minolta MC/MD, Contax Zeiss or Leica R.

Things become more of a hassle with newer lenses, especially those with electronic contacts and autofocus. If the electronic innards become faulty, there will be fewer and fewer places that will service them in years to come. Electronic AF protocols have varying degrees of performance across brands.

Canon EF - aperture can only be adjusted through the camera, and are useable on mirrorless cameras with varying degrees of success. On Canon EOS R, EF lenses apparently work extremely well. On other manufacturers it's a crapshoot.

So how to build a lens set that is fairly future proof? Canon EF seemed to be a good bet until I started using them on the S5 - the Sigma MC21 adapter provides patchy performance on its own lenses at best, and potentially bad performance on earlier EF lenses at worst.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree? It's optimal to use a brand's own lenses for the best performance, but this puts a financial investment into staying in the system, in the hopes that the system will have enough longevity to recoup outlay and deliver financial and emotional profit.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Well, nothing is really future proof. But a couple of Nikon Fs, 1000 feet of medium slow black and white film, a set of digital scales and a stock of powder chems would see most of us out. If you really want to be able to photograph whatever life exists after Armageddon, and you're planning to use digital capture, I reckon you're backing the wrong horse.

 

[Rob-F]

I just stick with Nikon F mount, Leica M mount, Leica LTM, and Hasselblad V series. You can even adapt the latter to Nikon bodies! As to all the other mounts, I just ignore all that and let the world go by. I have enough stuff to take a picture with.

 

[farlymac]

Technology marches on, so it's either fall in step, or get out of the way. Every time there is an improvement in a lens mount there will always be those who cannot adopt the new specs. I know I've been slow to, but that's more because of the sheer economics of it all.

I wait until a system has matured, then invest when the system gets its next level of improvement. It's why I'm using AF-D lenses on my D610 instead of replacing them all with the newer G series. When I finally move up to the Z mount I'll then need to make a decision on FX or DX. The lenses I have for the D300s can be used with an FTZ adapter, so I would be okay sticking with DX. But if I go with FX, my D series lenses would be like going back to AiS since I would lose the AF feature. And FX Z lenses are not cheap.

So it's mainly a matter of staying with one system and wringing out as much as you can from it until it is absolutely necessary to make the change. That's the "Get out of the way" part of the new technology march. Or you could just "Fall in step" and start a new system all over again.

Lots of folks raised a ruckus when Canon abandoned the FD mount, but most got over it. Same with Nikon, who while they kept improving on the F mount for many decades, it still had some backwards compatibility. They finally caved in when developing the Z mount, and once again the crowds clamored for the old ways, but many went ahead and changed.

If I could right now, I'd be deep into the Z system. But if I was, I'd still have at least one good old film, all manual control system for just in case.

PF

 

[CMur12]

To the OP, in your case you have some future proofing in the alliance between Panasonic, Sigma, and Leica, in that they will all be making lenses for the same mount.

In other news:

As I understand it, all Canon EF lenses made since 1987 have full functionality on all Canon EOS D/SLRs made since 1987.

I've read that Canon EF lenses also have full, and in some cases even enhanced capability, used on Canon R full-frame mirrorless cameras with a Canon adapter.

Then to add insult to injury 🙂D), there is apparently an adapter that allows Canon EF lenses to be used with full functionality on Nikon Z full-frame mirrorless cameras. (This one takes the cake! I mean, do Nikon users truly deserve such service from the wonderful Canon lenses?! 😎)

- Murray

 

[gavinlg]

Leica M for me. Still nothing that competes with it in the market and will be nothing for the forseeable future. Works great on my Nikon Z/mirrorless body X into the future too.

 

[Archiver]

Leica M for me. Still nothing that competes with it in the market and will be nothing for the forseeable future. Works great on my Nikon Z/mirrorless body X into the future too.

As much as I would like to stick with that path as I have a fair number of M mount lenses, most of the smaller lenses have a range of smearing towards the edges. The smearing is more pronounced on some lenses than others. Centre sharpness seems fine enough, although towards the edges it can get pretty hairy.

The Elmarit 28, for example, is smeary towards the edges, as is the CV Nokton 35/1.4 v1. The CV Nokton 35/1.2 v1 isn't that bad, but the wide open glow seems even more pronounced on the S5, or maybe it's just my imagination. The Zeiss 21/2.8 is fantastic on the M9 but smears at the edges on the S5, same with the Zeiss 25/2.8 and 28/2.8. They are usable if I'm only concerned with centre sharpness, but there is a difference that can be quite noticeable under the right/wrong circumstances.

On the other hand, the CV Ultron 40/2 SL in EF mount is sharp wide open and across the frame, despite being a pancake lens. Weirdly, the S5 stops down the aperture by itself when shooting video wide open in A mode, which is shouldn't do. And it does this with the native 20-60mm, too, so it seems to be a camera behaviour. But that is another note to me that lenses with full manual control have their advantages.

 

[shawn]

I don't think you can build a truly future proof lens system but you can build a collection that makes it easier to transition from one system to another. Esp. if you stay within the same format. I had native lens systems in m4/3 and Fuji X and when I moved from them obviously had to get rid of the lenses. That hurt and since then I've limited native lens purchases.

If manual focus and aperture priority shooting work for you then a huge number of lenses are available. Your pack will be a little bit lighter if you stick with one adapter but with a couple it is pretty easy to fill out most needs. For example Leica M lenses for normal and telephoto use and Nikon D or earlier for wide angles (to avoid smearing). With my A7RII I used M/LTM, a couple of Nikon and a couple of Canon adapted lenses. The native lens I bought was a Tamron 17-28mm as there wasn't something comparable that could be adapted for similar cost.

If you are looking for P mode shooting and AF then Canon EF is being adapted to pretty much everything now and likely will continue. Adapter quality varies but electronically the adapters are getting very sophisticated. I used a Canon 40mm f2.8 STM and a Sigma 100-400 Contemporary on a Sony A7RII. With a different adapter they work on my GFX 50R. AF works, aperture works electronically, OS works, lens correction data is passed and used by the camera, etc..etc. The only things I'm seeing is the adapter I have doesn't have a way of putting the lens into Auto aperture (the Fuji doesn't have PASM dial), focus distance does not look like it is being passed, and focal length of the zoom is only being passed as 100mm.

The place a collection like this may not adapt as well is if you change formats. If you go to a smaller sensor the effective FOV of all your lenses shifts toward telephoto. If you go to a larger sensor everything shifts more wide angle and if you move to MF then your lenses may or may not have the coverage for the sensor. Some will work, some will not.

Shawn

 

[Godfrey]

When I first saw this thread, I thought "well, I should tell the history of my migration through lenses, mount adapters, and such, and how I ended up where I am ..." and started to write it. And then I realized the story was long and boring and only really of interest to me. :angel:

Suffice it to say that I lucked into a nice collection of Leica R-mount lenses around a decade ago and at the same time had accumulated a nice collection of interesting Leica M-mount lenses as well. I already had had Hasselblad V system bodies and lenses once before, and reinvested in those again too. I have a couple of Nikon F mount lenses too. I have a Nikon F, a Leicaflex SL and R6.2, and an M4-2 body so I can shoot film with the F, R, and M lenses as well; of course, I have Hassy 500CM bodies that work for film with the V system lenses.

I use these lenses on my Leica CL body, on my Panasonic GX9 body, and on my Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c Special Edition. With some variations, they work well and present some interesting lens qualities for these formats. I have a few FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds mount lenses for the GX9 too.

The V system lenses work brilliantly on the 500CM fitted with the CFV back, as you might expect. 🙂

The only native mount lenses I'm buying for the electronic control generation at this point are Hasselblad XCD lenses for the 907x. They are each, to a lens, just superb performers.

So ... I'm pretty future proof with the R and M lenses, the smattering of Nikon F lenses. But I don't think Hasselblad's X system is going away any time that I'm going to see and I've made that my primary system for a lot of stuff.

Of course, I've been shooting so much Polaroid SX-70 derivatives (SX-70 original, SLR670a, SLR670m, SLR670x...) of late, and enjoying it so much, that I could save myself a boatload of cash by just buying Polaroid film and forgetting about all the other stuff... well, until I buy about a thousand packs of film that is. Then it will be more expensive! LOL!

There's no such thing as future proof, really. Photography is an expensive pursuit and equipment changes constantly. Accept that, do what promotes making photographs you're happy with, stop there if you please, and life is best.

G

"Equipment is transitory. Photographs endure."

 

[Phil_F_NM]

My "future proof" solution is to stick with mostly Nikon. I have adapters to use all of my other system lenses on M4/3, but otherwise, the real "future proof" solution is that which allows me to shoot without relying upon electricity. After the loss of a 4TB drive this last year, I want to ensure my photos are actually tangible and recoverable, in spite of damage. So I guess the real "future proofing" would be to print everything digital or transfer it all to film...

Phil Forrest

 

[Spluff]

Since getting my Panasonic S5, and with it, the issues of a new lens mount, I've been thinking about how to make a 'future proof' lens collection. Is this important to anyone else?

Completely important to me! And, if it's any consolation I've been pondering pretty much the same as you for about a year now!

In a previous thread, you flagged the S5 and I have been looking at that very closely to see if it fits my needs, but I tend to use lenses at the wide end.

I suspect, like a lot of forum members, I have a vast range of lens mounts and I fear adding more mounts could be another expensive dead end street as some of the glass I have is very good but hardly going to get me much in the secondhand market (anyone for the Contax N Mount?!). It's frankly now cheaper for me to buy a range of bodies and adapt them as best as I can!

I'd stick to film if I could, but am becoming less confident of travelling with film, and so I am now having to seriously consider digital properly for the first time rather than just dabbling away at secondhand (first generation) digital cameras like the Leica T.

Oh well, more thinking to do!

 

[jsrockit]

Since getting my Panasonic S5, and with it, the issues of a new lens mount, I've been thinking about how to make a 'future proof' lens collection. Is this important to anyone else?

Nope, not at all. Lenses are easily sold if I want to move onto something else. Any $ lost is spent on the enjoyment of the equipment while I was using it. I'm also one of those people who likes change, so I never use anything for life.

 

[hap]

Well, nothing is really future proof. But a couple of Nikon Fs, 1000 feet of medium slow black and white film, a set of digital scales and a stock of powder chems would see most of us out. If you really want to be able to photograph whatever life exists after Armageddon, and you're planning to use digital capture, I reckon you're backing the wrong horse.

Solar plasma ejection cycle warming up....due soon enough.

 

[Doug A]

After years of camera system profligacy I am down to just two lens mounts, LTM and Fuji X. And with a Leica LTM to M adaptor and Fuji M to X adaptor I could get along just fine with only the LTM lenses. My "newest" lens, a W-Nikkor 35/2.5 LTM, is rapidly becoming my favorite. It is incredibly sharp but not hyper contrasty like more modern lenses.

 

[bluesun267]

LTM for me too. Though I have Nikon F as a secondary system (lenses are mostly plentiful and inexpensive to experiment with.) Funny how the most primitive and oldest mount, LTM, remains the most versatile; is it the K.I.S.S. principle at work? I think most of us on RFF appreciate vintage camera technology, but we're not the majority of photographers by any means

 

[retinax]

I try not to worry about future proof. We'll be fine. Lenses will remain available and so will cameras and film. The glut of cheap used equipment is coming to an end but we'll be fine.
The best thing you can do is learn to work within the boundaries of few focal lengths, that makes the whole thing much more affordable.